Game Journalists Are Not Covering Videogames

Videogame banter used to be simple. Whether it was opinions on a game or straight console war shitfights, people said what they were thinking. Xbox is a poorly made piece of shit. GameCube is a purple lunch box for babies. Playstation games are ugly like your Mum. Now days, you get banned for that kind of stuff on forums and that’s fair enough. It’s never nice to insult people or trash talk for the sake of it. However I’m beginning to feel the landscape of passive-aggressive assumptions we have now is even more toxic. There’s this illusion that things are more “civilised” in the gaming community, created by ever growing concern for social issues and a set of universal standards games are being judged on. As a result of this social narrative becoming popular and generating clicks, every game coming out is being judged by the same set of rules, regardless of whether or not it makes sense in the game’s own context as a playable videogame.

IGN recently conducted an interview with Hiromasa Shikata, the director of Tri Force Heroes, to express their disappointment that you could not play as a woman. A brand new Zelda game with unusual gameplay mechanics, and this is what they focus on. Who is Female Link, you ask? Nobody, she doesn’t fucking exist. It’s an idea that does not exist in the Zelda universe. In this guys mind, the 28 year history of the series has been tossed behind the concern of the week, it’s not important. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for females and diversity. I shouldn’t have to clarify this but I am, and I just really don’t think about gender when I’m playing a game. While exploring the Chozo Ruins in Metroid Prime, I never once forgot that I had a cock. I never once thought about having mad hips or wearing a Zero Suit onesie. If an upcoming Zelda has a female Link? Cool. I’ll play that too, have a great time and still be myself. It’s the creator’s choice. IGN pulling this shit in an interview is disrespectful to Shikata’s creative vision for Tri Force Heroes, and forces him to reveal plot details explaining why you play as Link. That’s right, he has to explain WHY YOU PLAY AS LINK in a Zelda game. After doing his best to answer politely, IGN still won’t let it go.

“IGN: I guess I wouldn’t be doing my job if I didn’t express some slight disappointment with that, especially because there is a Zelda outfit Link wears in the game. It just feels like it’s one step closer to giving the Zelda series’ female audience the chance to explore that universe from another perspective.”

Thanks for doing your job mate. I’m super grateful for your disappointment. I know where to come now if I’m looking for disappointment. I also know a game you might be interested in, it’s called Hyrule Warriors and you can be ANY CHARACTER YOU WANT!

Chew on that diversity. This beautiful game has its own scenario where it makes sense to play as anybody, just as Tri Force Heroes has it’s own story with Link as the hero. Show some respect for what these games are, not what they are not.

This is just one unfortunate guy’s opinion at IGN, not a big deal right? Am I missing the mark for singling out IGN for this? Nope. Polygon made a story about it. Gametrailers spent a podcast talking about the “issue” with Tri Force Heroes being sexist, nothing about the gameplay. They also hit upon important topics like the Wii U being dead and Star Fox Zero having “2003 graphics”. What does that mean, it looks like Grand Theft Auto? F-Zero GX? Anyway, moving on with the shitlist we have Destructoid, Tech Times, Videogamer and of course all the Nintendo fansites because they post fucking anything. I’m not highlighting these sites to shit on them, I have no problem with half of them. This is all just to show the scope of this imaginary issue. Kotaku however DOES deserve shame, as always, for going the extra mile and putting their own opinion in the headline as if it’s more important than the story.

Here’s the game by the way, in case you’re confused. Can you even tell the gender of these players? I fucking can’t. I don’t see how having a dick or vagina is going to make hitting that crystal any easier. This game is all about gameplay, as 3 players team up to solve puzzles and kick arse. It’s the fully designed multiplayer online Zelda game that these same websites have been demanding for years, and it’s not important anymore because the rules changed.

… moving on.

Gamespot is my next target in this article, and boy are they an easy target. This site has grown a reputation for giving bad scores and short reviews to Nintendo games. It’s easy to pass that off as a matter of taste, but the truth is they barely played the games. These reviews spend multiple paragraphs coming up with fancy wordplay to extend the length just long enough to make the review printable, and cover up the fact they would rather be playing Witcher 3.

What an ordeal that must have been. Not being able to play the 10 out of 10 Witcher 3, while you struggled through a 6 out of 10 game. I don’t care if you don’t like Yoshi’s Woolly World, that’s an opinion you’re entitled to even if it’s a very bad one. My issue is the complete apathy surrounding this. Just say what you’re thinking without a stupid meme at the end. The game is a fucking rubbish game for kids, you’re too mature for it, Nintendo’s dead, the fans are idiots, Iwata’s a cunt. I know you’re thinking all of these things while wiping the Dorito stains off your keyboard, wondering why life is so difficult. My issue isn’t even with any of that, you’re employed to be a corporate weasel for a shit company, and that’s fine. You’re doing your “job”. Just don’t fucking pretend you played Yoshi’s Woolly World or care about it.

@Rob_Crossley_ can you post your file select screen for Woolly World? People are saying you didn't play past World 3. Surely you did.

I decided to politely ask this guy what the deal was, as the comments on the Gamespot review turned nasty, and accusations were flying around Twitter as well. He unfortunately deleted his response, but it was along the lines of “it doesn’t matter, haters gonna hate“. He could not prove he played past World 3, and suddenly became the victim, like he planned this all along. You can take a screenshot from the Wii U in seconds through the internet browser, but I’m guessing it was boxed up or gone because his “job was done”. The fact that he went back after 4-5 days and deleted the tweet reflects a bizarre behavior for someone who did their job. It wasn’t even a conspicuous tweet, though it did confirm my suspicions and I’ll take the initiative to screen-cap things in the future. I was naive and expected him to be a decent person.

He spent the entire review essentially lying about having played the game, making up bullshit like “the controls are too good”, and “it’s too easy” but “hard to play properly”. Yet, the commenters saying what they feel, are made out to be the bad people. I could use the most disgusting language in the world, but I still have a point. I’ve 100% completed Woolly World and there are some very difficult stages and a lot of variety in each world. It took me 40 hours to see everything. I don’t expect reviewers to 100% complete everything in the short amount of time they have, but it’s clear as day he did not put effort into playing the game or writing the review. Therefore, everyone responding does have the moral high ground. He managed to muster up some half-hearted replies, but no answers.

Not good enough. The review was written for people who would not play the game, which is the moment he stops being a game reviewer, and becomes a tool. It’s more of a “do not enter” sign than a presentation of its values. I’d also like to point out that it’s not even well written. The controls are described as “immeasurably good”, yet these are one of the few things in a game you can measure and compare. Music, art style, atmosphere may be immeasurable, but to just say “good” is fucking lazy. I spend half my reviews talking about the controls and gameplay mechanics. It’s the single most important thing in a game and it’s never “good”. One fucking word. Furthermore, he contradicts himself multiple times. First the graphics, where he says it’s visually distinguished, yet unimpressive. Because… it’s a Wii U game? Does every Wii U game need that subtext? Then he talks about the difficulty and says it’s “easy”, yet “difficult to find everything”, “the platforming is too easy”, yet there are “hardcore challenges” there. It was in fact so easy, that he COULDN’T BEAT THE GAME. Are you confused yet? I fucking hope so, because that’s the only thing the review accomplishes.

This went even further on Twitter when I found myself chatting to Gamespot’s community manager, who probably didn’t know much (a nice person, bless her) but said “resources” were a reason some games got shit reviews. What could that possibly mean, some people have less brain cells? I can only speculate that means if a publisher isn’t breathing down a reviewers neck, they don’t bother. It’s too much of a burden to be interested in playing a videogame unless it has swag, cheat sheets and 10s made of candy falling out of the collector’s edition. What’s interesting about the lazy Nintendo reviews on Gamespot, is they are all by different reviewers, the Yoshi one being the guy’s first review for the site. Really made an impact there mate. This “collection” of idiocy means these morons are either handpicked FOR their lazy, indifferent writing, or there’s some fucked up culture making people dumber the second they walk into Gamespots Dorito-stained office. Neither scenario is excusable. Anybody has resources to play a videogame and write about it. It’s your fucking dream job, mate. Put the swag aside and become an active human being. Participate and be proud of your own writing.

Yoshi is an extreme example I’ve honed in on (because I’ve been playing the game), but you can also apply it to DKC: Tropical Freeze or Kirby and the Rainbow Paintbrush, and fuck knows what else because I can’t read another word on that site without my brain trying to escape my head. If you’ve played any of these games and read over their apathy, the lack of perspective becomes transparent and embarrassing to read.

You might’ve noticed a trend in this article. Every fuck-up is an example of the writer “doing their job“. That’s a big fucking problem. They are spending more time being weasels, creating narratives and covering their tracks, than playing and discussing videogames. Your job as a journalist is to find out information and report the facts. Obviously, this is never really the case in any field, and gaming has almost “evolved” to match the political bullshit of other industries now with so many companies involved. Regardless, I feel like we are missing out as a result of journalistic incompetence. Instead of asking Nintendo “where’s Metroid??” and “why isn’t Link gay and pregnant with Uncharted graphics??!?”, we could perhaps get some answers on why the N64 Virtual Console has a dark filter. What teams are working on it. Who decides these things. What is going on with Mario Kart 8’s matchmaking, was fire hopping intended? What’s on the cards for more Nintendo World Championship type events? Just show a shred of interest in game design and maybe they’ll have more confidence in New IPs and releasing stuff like Mother 3. Notice I didn’t say to directly ask about Mother 3. You just have to represent a community that cares about playing a game.

Now I’m going to play some Kirby and forget I had to make this shitpost. Nobody else is talking about this so I feel like I have to. Seriously, can anyone else SEE the landscape right now? Find me one single pro-Nintendo multiplatform website. I can’t see any, because the company has stopped involving themselves directly in this culture. That shouldn’t have much of an impact, but it does because OTHER publishers take advantage of game journalists weaknesses. You could feel in that IGN interview, Shikata was put off by IGN’s awkward questions and will probably never speak to them again. He thinks they’re wackjobs and he’s right. The female developers on the team don’t even agree with them. Another thing missing from the big picture is people calling out these websites for being fuckwits. Comment spam and blog posts like this, just aren’t going to cut it. This isn’t enough. Nobody has the balls to say what they feel anymore on big websites, reviewers are scared of enjoying games that don’t match their AAA guidelines. Playing Nintendo games should be mandatory, and not a burden. You should be excited at the thought of playable videogames. Journalism will keep getting worse if they aren’t held accountable. Call them out and just speak your mind. Don’t be afraid to look like a fanboy or fangirl. You know what that means? You love videogames. Nothing is more valuable than honesty when I want to know about an experience, and these soulless hacks representing gaming need to replaced with people who are passionate, because the gaming industry is fucking awesome.

Post navigation

31 thoughts on “Game Journalists Are Not Covering Videogames”

Gaming journalists have long been in the pocket of these gender ideologues. They don’t care about games, they only care about pushing their bullshit narrative and will shove it down your throat at every opportunity.

I’ve been thinking about this for a little while, especially having listened to GameTrailers’ podcast and reading the IGN article about Tri Force Heroes. And in response to the latter, on NVC, the author of that article talks about the reception to it and his hesitance to talk about it further, and he makes a good point. He didn’t necessarily think anything bad of Shikata’s response, he just asked a question, Shikata answered, and then moved on. The argument of “journalists aren’t asking about games anymore” in response to the topic being focused on gender equality in games seems knee-jerk-like. Games are not a boys club anymore and it should be a question that gets asked. Lots of people with young daughters notice the enhanced enthusiasm for games when there are playable female characters. It’s why Splatoon is so popular with girls. It’s why Hyrule Warriors has a bigger following than it probably should (though it is fantastic and I love it, just would expect it to be niche).

But I will always agree with the unfair dismissal of Wii U games because they’re on Wii U, or because they don’t meet AAA standards. GameSpot has been a TERRIBLE example of this. It all began during the Wii days, when it came time to talk about graphics, they said “Good for a Wii game”, instead of saying whether or not the game looked good. The hardware should be accounted for, but maybe in a more graceful way. The “good for a Wii game” logic came from the fact that it wasn’t HD, but there were plenty of PS360 games that looked worse due to bad art direction.

That line about controls is classic, though, and that illustrates the worst problem among this current gaming culture. We want so badly for our hobby to be seen as an art form that we forget it’s foundations are what truly make it so. Words like “immersive” and “experience” boil down to corporate buzz-terms. The visceral aspect is what makes video games, video games. You can be immersive without being visceral; that’s the nature of watching TV or movies, or listening to an album. Games require your input. Games require a control-scheme to be built, levels to be smartly designed around that scheme, and a story to tie it all together. But the art is not just in any sole one of these. The art is in how they all collide. A game like Super Mario 3D World is technically sound in all of this as WELL as art direction, where a game like Arkham Knight, being a successor to a proven gameplay formula, is only fun to play in that respect. Because it’s story is poorly paced around a world that requires you to use a gameplay mechanic that is not sound. Yet games with this style of presentation are what is trying to be seen as the art. That’s what bothers me the most.

Terribly sorry to the GameSpot reviewer that he had to stop playing Witcher 3 to enjoy a complete package of entertaining controls and level design. What a horrible thing to go through. Sorry to distract you from your “art”.

***in that last short paragraph, I don’t mean to discount Witcher 3. I haven’t personally played it, and it absolutely could be wonderful. I meant “art” as in the latest bar that the AAA market wants to set, or maybe the one that we too unrealistically set for it.

You have a point though, open world games are judged with almost no standards when it comes to gameplay. When you think about it, they all control exactly the same with their own small quirks, and very similar combat and exploration across the board. Clunky dual-stick aiming has become accepted, even if it’s not very good. Not hating on Witcher either, but the uniqueness of the game depends on world design. Now take two Nintendo games, Yoshi and Kirby, and the game mechanics are a world apart. Yet they are judged MUCH more harshly, despite (successfully) trying so many new things with gameplay that NO other games even attempt. The “AAA market” assumes you need dialogue and scripted scenes to tell a story, which is ignoring the strongest component of videogames.

I think people don’t understand that you don’t have to have characters of different genders to have gender equality in games, it’s the content that the game consists of that matters. Games can have a singular gender for the characters and not be sexist, all the game needs is to not have sexism built into it. A game like Splatoon would work with one or both genders just fine. Heck, no one even cared that Samus could have been a woman in the first Metroid until it was revealed she was. What I am trying to say is that it is the characters themselves that matter in the game, not their genders.

While you have a point with character development, really what it boils down to is inclusivity and representation. Games can absolutely have singular characters and not be sexist, but the response to Nintendo’s E3 in 2014, where almost every game they showed had some type of female representation. Splatoon was widely well-received by female gamers it was thought that it was the only gender, and the skin color was completely customizable.

I’m a boy so I won’t proclaim I know how women feel, but I would think they’d be more stoked if they were playing as a woman character who kicks as much ass (or maybe not!) as a male character. It’s all about feeling included and valid.

You’re dead wrong. The argument of “validity through inclusion” is complete nonsense, and being male doesn’t excuse you from having the judgement to recognize it as such. How does the gender of a lead character affect ANYTHING outside the game? It’s just an object in the game – maybe it’s part of the story, maybe it’s just something that is thematically compatible with the powers you use, or maybe it’s just a straight up artistic choice or reference to other media. There’s no difference in “immersion” because Mario is a guy or Samus is a girl. There’s no feelings of inclusion or exclusion because Final Fantasy VI has two female leads, or Final Fantasy VII has one male lead. It’s a GAME. Nobody pulls this shit on movies or books. Nobody is whining that they can’t relate to Lord of the Rings because Frodo is an ugly little guy. You know what girls think of Lord of the Rings? “Legolas is hot”. It might sound shocking, but girls like attractive characters of the opposite sex just as much as guys do, they notice it just as much as guys do, and they are happy enjoying media which prominently features such characters just as much as guys are. When you hear bullshit about “inclusion” or “gender equality”, you are listening to the psychobabble of that 0.03% of women who are insane screeching feminists, or one of the weak men they’ve brow beaten into submission. Don’t give them an inch. Tear their arguments to shreds and humiliate them at every opportunity. It’s the only way we’re going to avoid a future which is catered to every crazy demand they make.

Grubdog, I can understand your frustration. Movements like gamergate have been highlighting how corrupt games journalism really is for most of the past 12 months. Writing articles like this helps too. I also object to gender ideologues trying to push ridiculous agendas through the games media. To those people I would say ‘Link is a guy, get over it!’.

As for Chris’ comment above. Gamers are inclusive, and it may not be a ‘boy’s club’, but it is also true that females in general don’t play games with any roles in them as often as male do, through choice. Gaming companies are target market audience in this regard. There have also been literally hundreds of examples of characters in video games that were either female (Samus) or virtually gender neutral (Kirby) since the 1980’s. Let’s leave it to the game creators to decide what gender they want to make their characters. As stated in the article,hundred of thousands of males have played as a female character in Metroid and there was no issue. I don’t see why the hundreds of thousands of girls playing games would have any problem playing as Mario. If girls don’t want to play as Mario, did they really have any interest in playing the game to begin with? Alternatively Chris, change the argument to any other medium and see if it stands up. Is it sexist that Leonardo DaVinci painted the mona lisa as a female? Would you have gone back and demanded he painted a male version too? Do you think the character of Gibbs in the NCIS TV show should suddenly walk into the office with a sex change because he has been male for too long? (Forward all plot suggestions to Mark Harmon)

I think you’re taking my comment as a be-all-end-all scenario. Playing as a male is not an adherently bad thing for women, because the game will speak volumes moreso in how it plays than who it stars. However, take my “fundamentals” theory; how games are control mechanics with levels designed around them and a story and art direction to tie it together. The latter is the first thing people see, so should it surprise anybody that a lot of women were stoked to watch that Horizon demo contain a female lead? Now of course it’s all situational. A game like Horizon is very cool to see having a female lead, but I personally don’t care about how it plays right now because the developers/Sony said it’s likely 2 years out. But it’s still nice to see that this project is in the works for this very reason. Women wanting to play Mario is also different. Mario isn’t necessarily the most masculine of male characters, in the sense that he could have been designed much like Kirby as some weird blob or animal not really representing a certain gender, yet his personality is so non-threatening and welcoming, that it doesn’t matter. At the same time, I wouldn’t really argue with a woman who doesn’t want to play as Nathan Drake in Uncharted because he, as a character, is kind of a dickhead. I don’t see how women would want to resonate with or play as him (or Uncharted in general because it’s not a fun game, but that’s my own argument)

Since the 1980’s, there were examples, but hundreds of iconic women is just not true. Samus wasn’t a woman until the player discovered she was, because the market was so skewed towards men that it was frowned upon to play as a woman. I wasn’t alive in the 80’s so I couldn’t tell you what the response to Samus being a woman was. But the idea that women don’t play these games by choice is only correct to a point. We’ve already seen big-name publishers do their best to broaden the demographic, yet there are a select few that want only to double down their efforts towards the frat boy market, which doesn’t help much. At the end of the day, the product does not change in an insulting way, and it makes a largely marginalized group who want to get into this medium feel welcome. It’s just nice to make people feel nice.

On the topic of gameplay though, this article is really dead on the money. There is a shocking lack of discussion about actual mechanics and how they intertwine with the worlds built around them, and there’s a dismissive attitude towards games that don’t have a cinematically delivered emotional semblance. I will still to this day never forget the first time I read the interview with Ready at Dawn about The Order not being 60 FPS because The Hobbit looked weird at 48 FPS, and it’s not right for a movie. An example of a truly misguided project.

The answer is simple, North America game journalists are now playing the Social Justice Warrior card and making themselves look like absolute tools. Seriously, why is it now people are giving a shit about Project HAMMER? Because some incompetent former NST developer accused Nintendo of being racism.

why does every argument about gender dynamics in video games turn into some dude ranting about dicks

seriously, the line “I’m all for females and diversity” is really at odds with the everything else you say and believe if the most important part is imagining some virtual genitalia on your avatar. you’re not fooling anyone that doesn’t already agree with you

I’ve been completely ignoring all game press for years. The industry of gaming “journalism” has been a complete sham for years, but it has recently become such a monstrosity that I can’t completely avoid it. All this politically correct garbage needs to be rejected immediately, and in the most damaging, humiliating way possible for those who are trying to control us with it. It is well past time to laugh in someone’s face and call them a fucking moron for suggesting that we need a Zelda game where Zelda replaces Link. We don’t. EVER.

After, and only after we’ve purged the industry of that cancer, can we focus on bringing integrity back to reviews. In a sense, the industry-wide condemnation of Nintendo doesn’t bother me. The rest of the industry has hated Nintendo as long as they’ve been in the business. So they want to keep Nintendo from being mainstream. Fine. Nintendo’s games are TOO GOOD for it to matter. They aren’t going out of business any time in the next two decades, and if they have to focus on their core audience for a few years while the mainstream bubble bursts for everyone else, then all the better. Honestly, Nintendo is at their best when they feel free to challenge us without having to worry if little Timmy and his grandma can’t breeze through level 3. Back in 1995, they trusted that 10 year old me could make it through Super Metroid, and they were right. Unfortunately, they don’t seem to be willing to go in that direction. Unfortunately, I see that they’re instead caving into political insanity and making a Fire Emblem with gay marriage? HUH?! What’s next, gender swapped Link? A black princess in Mario? Something else I’m not even aware that people are bitching about? When you give in to these political hacks, it’s like blood in the water. Once they know you are weak, they will attack twice as hard.

Perhaps you could start taking submissions for reviews. I’ve bought games based on what I’ve read here. Your passion is obvious in your articles, and the humor is also great. My favorite is still the F1 racer article with the WiiU gamepad (what the fuck do we do with this thing?!).

Game reviewers seem to think they’re all powerful and that game companies should (and MUST!) submit to their power so that they can shape a mold gaming to what they feel it should be. But they forget that without access to those games, they’re powerless.

It’s rather tacky actually.

Currently I’m not following a single gaming site. I’ll check here or check there from time to time but there isn’t a single gaming site that I’m on regularly. Why? Because not a single one is actually a gaming site any more. They’ve all become little cults rallying around their messiahs.

See a terrible article on a site? Go in the comments section and call it out. I’m sure they’ll be receptive of your criticism. Except that’s not what happens. Instead you end up being attacked en-mass by the sites “devoted” followers. How DARE someone question their GOD! It’s all fun and games until someone actually decides to stand up and demand some integrity.

I’m actually rather surprised by the lack of posts here attacking this article. I thought for sure this would end up have 300+ replies mostly from people defending their site of choice and their idiotic decisions.

It’s the great irony of video games. People don’t care about gameplay. They get their kicks from graphical fidelity and various other “movie-like” qualities. They enjoy the bare minimum of interaction, just so they know they aren’t actually watching a movie. Why? Because gameplay takes work. You gotta learn. You gotta act. You gotta commit. When people get home from work and they’re tired, they don’t want to play Pikmin 3’s stressful Mission Mode. They want The Order 1886’s passive shooting.

Yeah, I think the word STRESSED here is a problem. Losing or slowing your progress in a videogame doesn’t have to be stressful. Some people just don’t realise this is part of the experience. Like when a game doesn’t save your progress with checkpoints, losers will say “I did nothing!!! The game is CHEAP!!!” but in reality you learned a lot and next time you play it’ll be different. Personally I would be stressed if I couldn’t interact with my game and had no role in the events. Or having to download a 20GB patch, there’s a REAL buzzkill for you.

Yeah same with Smash Bros according to Neogaf. I feel like a lot of these journalists and a number of gamers who jump on the same hot “issues” topics have a very blinkered view of videogames.

We have videogames, a type of media where the player character could be anything. But for a number of people the only thing what counts for diversity is a “White Person, Black Person, Male Person, Female Person” checklist. A game that has: Robots, Ape’s, Anthro Fox, Firebreathing Turtles, Green Dinosaur, Blue Hedgehog, a Space Bounty Hunter, a Fitness Instructor, Angels, a Goddess, Italian Plumbers, a Yellow Electric Mouse, a Middle Eastern Sorceror(Gannondorf), Pink Puffballs, a dog & duck, Mii(which could be any skin tone) and whatever Pacman is supposed to be doesn’t count as a diverse roster.

We’ve reached a point where one of things that make videogames unique, is forgotten in favour of pushing a hot topic issue that in terms of a videogame is pretty arbitrary. I mean we know devs will add that kind of diversity if the game/series calls for it Nintendo had just released Splatoon where you can choose the sex and skin tone of the human form of the Inkling player characters.

But it just seems wrong that the representation of sexes and races of human or humanoid characters have became such a priority for some people to overlay to almost any game and that diversity of characters in video doesn’t count in gaming unless each character represents a real person.

Initially I was not proud of calling this guy out by name, it seemed a bit mean. Now though, I’m real glad I posted this because I’m learning a lot more. The shitty journalism problem goes much further than I thought.

Hey Grub, I’m sure you’ll be happy to know that with the reveal of Breath of the Wild, Kotaku, Verge, and many other shit websites have once again published clickbait stories (most likely written by middle aged, white, men) called Nintendo a bunch of misogynists who should be burned at the stake for not having a female Link option! Horray for games journalism!